Japan's Constitution and International Contributions

Japan's Constitution and International Contributions

by Yoshiaki Sanada

Revising the nation's Constitution is a major political topic in Japan today. In May 2007 a procedural law for a constitutional revision was enacted, providing for a national referendum on the subject; practical and concrete legislative work is ongoing. The main target of the revision would be Article 9, an embodiment of the spirit of pacifism.

Resolution to Renounce War

As a country involved in World War II, Japan participated in the slaughter and destruction of war and in its violence and plundering, and suffered the historic and unprecedented tragedy of having atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the basis of that historical experience, the Japanese, following the devastation caused by the atomic bombs, became aware of their special mission in history. That mission is "to never repeat the evil of war." They were given a mission, in other words, to show humankind that no matter what disputes or confrontations may arise with other nations, war must not be waged to resolve the issue, that there should be no military forces making war, and that war must be renounced.

The preamble to the Japanese Constitution declares the principle of international cooperation, stating: "We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world." Article 9 of the Constitution renounces war as follows: "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes" (first paragraph), and "In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized" (second paragraph).

Because of its Article 9, the Japanese Constitution is called the "Peace Constitution" and is highly regarded as an outstanding contribution to the world's constitutional traditions. For example, ten thousand people from all over the world participated in the Hague Appeal for Peace Civil Society Conference, held in the Hague, the Netherlands, in 1999. The conference was attended also by then-secretary-general Kofi Annan of the United Nations and representatives of national governments. The conference issued Ten Fundamental Principles for a Just World Order, the first of which states: "Every Parliament should adopt a resolution prohibiting their government from going to war, like the Japanese article number nine."

Article 9 Buffeted by Two Forces

Now Article 9 is currently under attack from two quarters. The first attack is from within the country. The sense of crisis felt in Japan about such issues as North Korea's missiles and its nuclear tests has turned into a confrontational attitude, with assertions such as "It's time we called the Self-Defense Force an army," "The country cannot be defended unless the Constitution is changed so that we can have an army," and "We should become a normal country with its own army."

The second attack comes primarily from foreign countries and criticizes Japan for using its Constitution as an excuse for not performing the role befitting a major economic power. In January 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, multinational forces led by the United States engaged in battle with the Iraqi army that had invaded Kuwait. Since Japan is prohibited by its Constitution from dispatching troops overseas, it instead contributed to the effort with an expenditure of US$13 billion, a huge sum. Certain foreign countries criticized this, asking, "Does Japan think that it can simply contribute money and that is the end of it? We are sending troops and suffering casualties!" and saying, "You should shed blood with us. You are cowards!"

For certain, under the provisions of the Constitution, Japan has kept its military buildup in check, created an industrial structure based on a nonmilitary model, and brought about tremendous economic progress. On the one hand, this success has given much confidence to economically and militarily weak countries. On the other hand, it is also true that Japan's approach is seen as self-serving in the "sensible" view of countries that rely heavily on their military might for national power. Taking these international circumstances into account, in 2003 Japan came to terms with the "sensible" approach of some of the leading nations that spend exorbitantly on their military, and embarked on a course to change its existing policy. The enactment of the "Law Concerning the Special Measures on Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance in Iraq" was the symbolic first step in that direction.

Two Paths of International Contribution

But is a policy of international cooperation that accepts this "sensible" view of some of the leading nations actually the path to true international service?

The question of extending the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law was a pressing issue in the Japanese Diet late last year. It was first put into force on November 1, 2001. Its formal title is "The Special Measures Law Concerning Measures Taken by Japan in Support of the Activities of Foreign Countries Aiming to Achieve the Purposes of the Charter of the United Nations in Response to the Terrorist Attacks Which Took Place on 11 September 2001 in the United States of America as well as Concerning Humanitarian Measures Based on Relevant Resolutions of the United Nations," which was the longest title of any law then in force.

Under that law, the Japanese government, in the name of "international service" in response to the anti-terrorist military action led by the United States and Britain that followed the simultaneous terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, dispatched escort and supply vessels of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force to the Indian Ocean to supply fuel and water to U.S. and British-led search-and-destroy missions against the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and others. The legislation initially limited this participation to a two-year period, but three extensions were later enacted. The government tried to get a fourth extension authorized and the United States and others urged Japan to do so, but in the face of strong objections from the opposition parties, the law expired on November 1. The government continued to work hard to achieve the early enactment of a new special measures law, so as to resume the refueling activities as soon as possible.

The Japanese government explained that the warships to which the Maritime Self-Defense Force provided logistical support in the Indian Ocean were contributing to the anti-terrorism operations in Afghanistan. However, was the supplying of fuel and water, which depended on the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, actually helping to bring peace in Afghanistan? Are the search-and-destroy operations conducted by the United States, Britain, and others against the Taliban forces succeeding as a result of it? Or is the opposite true, that the Taliban forces are making a come-back and expanding?

More than 80 percent of the Afghan people are farmers, and yet Afghanistan's farmland is being lost to the desert due to war and drought and its food self-sufficiency has dropped from 94 percent prior to the year 2000 to under 60 percent today. And what does the comeback of the poppy production in Afghanistan, which now accounts for 93 percent of the world's production of opium, mean? Also, will the farmers without land to farm become refugees, or will they become Taliban soldiers, or mercenaries for the U.S. military? They face truly tortuous life-or-death decisions.

The real question posed by the "international cooperation" referred to in the Constitution is which path to take--to contribute to the United States by participating in America's wars in the name of international cooperation, or to act from the standpoint of the war's biggest victims, the Afghan farmers, and support the rebuilding of an Afghan society that will have no need for the terrorist forces that have terrorism as an end in itself. The question is which path to choose--whether to cooperate in supporting war, or to cooperate in respecting life; whether to live in a culture of killing, or instead to live in a culture of life; whether to walk the road of warring nations, or to take the path of peaceful nations.

The True Path to Peace

An overwhelmingly large number of countries in the world today view their military might as the mainstay of their national policy. From their point of view, the logic of such statements as "Because of its Peace Constitution, Japan cannot become a major military power" or "Japan is safe because we have a Peace Constitution" will simply not hold water. Even if these have become slogans within Japan, they have no persuasiveness internationally. It is Japan's conduct in international society that is being called into question.

In its preamble, the Japanese Constitution states, "no nation is responsible to itself alone." In light of this constitutional principle, Japan must eliminate the various political, economic, and social roots of mistrust toward Japan, always act on the principles of the UN, and continue to move forward actively with international cooperation, such as giving aid to developing countries.

There are many people in the world who are suffering from poverty, discrimination, or oppression, and who live with a feeling of being trapped with no prospects for the future. These problems create a breeding ground for terrorism and violence. To build peace, in addition to nurturing trust with every single country, we must turn our attention to and work hard toward eliminating the international disputes that are the root causes of terrorism.

For the past sixty-three years Japan has not gone to war once, nor has it killed any citizens of another country in combat. From the standpoint of human history the Japanese must take more pride in this fact, and it should be their duty to be more active in transmitting the spirit of their pacifist Constitution to the world. And when it takes this fact into account, Japan should be able to take on even more of a leadership role in conflict resolution, becoming a breeder of international trust.

With that being the case, it goes without saying that for peace to be realized the exchange between and support of grass-roots groups and civil organizations are indispensable. It will become more and more important to sponsor activities that respond to the needs and desires of the people who are suffering from war and conflict. The continuing efforts at interfaith dialogue and cooperation being undertaken by the World Conference of Religions for Peace and others, and further promotion of efforts such as the Donate-a-Meal Campaign, started by Japanese people of religion, are also of increasing importance.

Until March 2007, Yoshiaki Sanada served as a professor of law at Chuo University in Tokyo, where he is now professor emeritus. He taught Western legal history and comparative law at the university's School of Law. He also has been a guest professor at the Institute of Comparative Law of the China University of Politics and Law in Beijing. He is director of the Peace Research Institute of the Japanese Committee of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

This article was originally published in the January-March 2008 issue of Dharma World.


back	up

Home